Minutes by yaofenji


									                   COMMISSION ON TECHNOLOGY
                              MEETING MINUTES

                                   November 3, 2006
                                  10:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m.

                                Arizona Supreme Court

                               Conference Room 119 A/B
                            Administrative Office of the Courts
                                 1501 W. Washington
                                  Phoenix, AZ 85007

MEMBERS PRESENT                                        MEMBERS ABSENT
Louraine Arkfeld                                       Jessica Blazina
Kent Batty                                             Mark Candioto
Michael Baumstark                                      Roger Klingler
Rebecca Berch, Chair
Robert Brutinel
Christopher Cummiskey (Brad Tritle, proxy)
B. Robert Dorfman
Peter Eckerstrom
John Gemmill
Michael Jeanes
Gary Krcmarik
Martin Krizay
Sheri Newman
Catherine O’Grady
Marcus Reinkensmeyer (John Barrett, proxy)
John Rezzo

GUESTS                                                AOC STAFF

Vicki Aguilar, Gila COSC                              Jack Bigwarfe, ITD
Kip Anderson, CACC                                    Stewart Bruner, ITD
Peggy Bair, Yavapai County                            Phillip Ellis, ITD
John Barrett, PACC                                    Karl Heckart, ITD/TAC
Tom Brady, CACC                                       Paul Hrisho, ITD
Janet Cornell, CACC                                   Tim Lawler, ITD
Beverly Frame, Yuma COSC                              Pat McGrath, CSD
Sue Hall, Apache COSC                                 Stephanie Nolan, ITD
Gordon Mulleneaux, CACC                               Pam Peet, ITD
Gregg Obuch, TAC, CACC                                Renny Rapier, ITD
Michael Pollard, CACC                                 Robert Roll, ITD
Rick Rager, Tempe Muni Court                          Susann Young, ITD
Kyle Rimel, TAC
David Stevens, TAC
Eloise Price, TAC
Carl Ward, Maricopa COSC

Commission on Technology                                                      Page 1
November 3, 2006, Minutes
Vice Chief Justice Rebecca Berch, Chair, called the Commission on Technology (COT)
meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. She welcomed members and the public present then asked
members to introduce themselves and share the constituency they represent. Staff
confirmed that a quorum existed.

Justice Berch made introductory comments on several items of interest to members:
    • Welcoming new member Sheri Newman, Clerk of the Superior Court in La Paz
        County, representing the rural Clerks of Court, and thanking Jeanne Hicks, Clerk
        of the Superior Court in Yavapai County, for her service to the Commission;
    • Providing COT and subcommittee 2007 meeting dates and thanking Stephanie
        Nolan for her hard work in securing them;
    • Clarifying the difference between having an architectural exception approved and
        having the funding associated with implementing the exception approved;
    • Reporting on the progress of the statewide Jury+ Web Interactive project as it
        heads toward conversions and implementation next summer; and
    • Summarizing the Auditor General’s recent positive report with its focus on
        strengthening independent reviews of statewide projects underway.

MOTION:        A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the
               September 8, 2006, Commission on Technology meeting. The motion
               passed unanimously. TECH 06-41.

Justice Andrew Hurwitz, chair of the e-Court Subcommittee, updated members on the
subcommittee’s approach for obtaining results at each level of court in the State in
addition to criminal filing. He outlined the projects determined by working groups and
currently in play at the various levels:
        General Jurisdiction – Installing full-featured electronic document management
        systems (EDMSs) in all superior courts and proving the multi-vendor model and
        functionality across more case types in Maricopa Superior Court.
        Limited Jurisdiction – Creating a fast track approach for law enforcement to
        implement electronic citations (e-citations) to lessen the civil-traffic-related
        workload on courts and eventually enable prosecutor long form/ordinance filing.
        The other project involves working at the grassroots level to standardize forms
        data in preparation for paper filing in the short term but to enable pro se electronic
        filing of cases in the long term.
        Appellate Courts – (specifically Supreme Court and Division One) Installing
        EDMSs in both courts, electronically transmitting the record using architectural
        standards between Yavapai Superior and Division One, and electronically
        distributing copies of the filings submitted to the Supreme Court.
        Criminal Filing – Mr. Karl Heckart, the e-Court member working with Arizona
        Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC), described the goal as getting to a standard
        set of transactions and technologies used to exchange data throughout the criminal
        justice process, building a cohesive solution a piece at a time. The Arizona
        Disposition Reporting System (ADRS) under construction now is the embodiment
        of that strategy. Karl stated that a demonstration version of ADRS would be
        unveiled at the ACJC Symposium on December 16 where Justice Hurwitz will be
        delivering the keynote address.
Commission on Technology                                                               Page 2
November 3, 2006, Minutes
Justice Hurwitz also detailed some decisions the subcommittee is requesting from COT:
        Designation of the case management system that will handle the statewide e-filing
        functionality, either AGAVE or AZTEC. The selection affects the cost and
        timeline for implementing the multi-vendor model statewide.
        Examining the function of signatures and determining whether a technical
        solution is really required beyond rule alterations. For those items that require a
        technical solution, the hope is that it would be very limited and therefore not very
        Preventing 125 plus separate procurements throughout the state after expiration of
        the Tucson contract for handheld devices in April 2007. Funding for e-citation
        may become an issue when the stated goal is a uniform citation filing system with
        a statewide procurement.
        Approval and ownership will be needed of the statewide standard forms once
        submitted by the grassroots organizations.
        Consideration of the long- and short-term impacts of changes to the way of doing
        business spurred by electronic documents.
        Whether searchability of submitted documents needs to be required prior to
        mandated e-filing.
Justice Hurwitz left members some things to think about, including:
        The composition of an e-signature team, since the issue cuts across all levels of
        court and
        How to motivate adoption of electronic filing.
He pointed out that arriving more rapidly at electronic filing reduces the transition time
clerks will spend scanning documents and more rapidly provides searchable filings to
replace unsearchable images scanned from paper submittals.

John Gemmill, Chief Judge of Division One, reported on the progress of the electronic
record on appeal pilot. He showed an electronic index of record and the process flow
associated with transfers, a list of standards used, and graphs of the transmit times/file
sizes/number of documents since September 11. He listed the issues that have been
uncovered during the pilot:
        Inconsistency in titles and document numbers in the index of record as well as
        inconsistent methods of amending a transmitted index;
        Lack of searchability in pdf documents transmitted from the superior court clerk;
        Bandwidth constrictions leading to lengthened transfer times;
        Assembler and clerk review software enhancements required (and made);
        Workstation equipment configuration testing; and
        The necessity of rule changes.

Judge Gemmill emphasized the importance to judges and staff attorneys of having every
word in the electronic record be searchable, but posed the question to members
concerning what level of court should be required to expend the extra money and effort to
convert scanned images into text searchable documents. The project is now beginning to
consider the next court to expand to at the completion of the six month testing period
with Yavapai. There is talk of taking on another rural county or possibly getting started
with Maricopa Superior on only a partial basis.

Commission on Technology                                                              Page 3
November 3, 2006, Minutes
Jeanne Hicks agreed with the judge’s assessment that the pilot is working exceptionally
well and added that savings in both staff time and copying costs are clearly evidenced in
the pilot.

Discussion ensued about whether standards exist for text searchable formats and whether
expanding the Supreme Court e-distribute program to superior courts would hasten the
need for standards. A recommendation was made that submission of pdfs having
searchable text be the requirement for any documents submitted on disk from the
beginning, since submittal of the copy on disk is entirely optional at this time.

Mr. John Barrett, Chief Technology Officer for Maricopa Superior Court, shared recent
progress made on the forcible detainer pilot up to the point of testing with the Arizona @
Your Service web portal payment gateway. Testing thus far has used a manual payment
process since the certificate has not yet been obtained from the payment processing
vendor. On behalf of Judge Steven McMurry, John requested permission to expand
testing to the four other precincts that will share the new downtown justice building with
the Encanto Precinct previously approved. Expansion will allow programmers to focus
on the way the system works with other judges. John re-affirmed that the project will
return for COT approval before it goes live in the full set of 23 consolidated justice court

MOTION:        Approve the expansion of the forcible detainer pilot to any of the
               other four precincts that will be housed in the new downtown justice
               center. The motion passed unanimously. TECH 06-42


Judge Michael Pollard, co-chair of the Court Automation Coordinating Committee
(CACC), reviewed CACC’s proposed, more stringent reporting format for statewide
projects. He described the weaknesses of the current text-based reporting format and the
ways those weaknesses are addressed by the new red/yellow/green milestone format,
especially measuring the current progress of the project toward distant deliverables.
Justice Berch pronounced the new format very useful and a good visual tool.

MOTION:        Approve the new format for monitoring statewide projects. The
               motion passed unanimously. TECH 06-43

Judge Pollard then framed the upcoming reports from the individual statewide projects
that are currently being monitored.


Mr. Rick Rager, Deputy Administrator for the Tempe Municipal Court, updated members
on progress being made on the Tempe CMS project. He summarized the cost thus far
($966,370.31) and showed a breakdown of all state and local contribution percentages.
He also characterized the skill sets and number of resources used on the project. Rick
recapped the functionality that has been built and demonstrated to date. The disposition
and diversion modules are next in line for release. A detailed decomposition analysis
Commission on Technology                                                              Page 4
November 3, 2006, Minutes
effort is currently underway to determine the functions that absolutely must be included
in Tempe’s summer 2007 implementation. Rick promised to return to COT to report
what he determines from the analysis. Tempe will also be leveraging the AOC’s
domestic violence module when it has been completed.

MOTION:        Approve the scope, project milestones, and continued investment in
               the Tempe CMS project as the candidate limited jurisdiction case
               management system. The motion passed unanimously. [Louraine
               Arkfeld abstaining] TECH 06-44


Mr. Gordon Mulleneaux, from the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court in Maricopa
County, reported on the effort to create a financial module in iCIS to process payments
related to both adult and juvenile probations as a joint process between the Clerk and the
Court. Gordon described in detail the strategy for replacing the RFR system in a couple
of distinct steps – juvenile first and then adult probation receivables. He shared the
staffing levels and skills used for the project. He summarized the total cost of the project
($1.162M) and breakdown of funds expended by their source.

Questions were raised regarding the apparent movement of milestones from Phase 3 to
Phase 4 and change of dates since the last appearance at COT. Gordon shared that the
project is running about 9 months behind the original schedule. The chair’s concern is
that the money could be exhausted before the project is complete and the Commission’s
influence is diminished once all funds have been disbursed. Maricopa representatives
stated that they are committed to expend whatever funds are necessary to complete the
project once the state’s funds run out. Mike Baumstark pointed out the strength of the
milestone funding approach as described in the Auditor General’s report. He encouraged
members to stay the course with that strategy.

MOTION:        Approve the scope, project milestones, and continued investment in
               the Maricopa Clerk’s iFIS project. The motion passed unanimously.
               [Michael Jeanes and John Barrett abstaining] TECH 06-45

MOTION:        Approve the release of $120,000.00 of the requested $228,000 in state
               funding with the balance kept as a retainer against completion of the
               Phase III milestones. The motion passed unanimously. [Michael
               Jeanes and John Barrett abstaining] TECH 06-46

Mr. Kent Batty, Administrator of the Superior Court in Pima County, emphasized that the
Pima AGAVE project has accomplished what COT directed in the annual meeting. He
introduced the new program manager, Mr. Phillip Ellis, to provide the details. Phillip
provided a brief recap of his credentials and experience. He reviewed the functions
provided by Release 1.0 currently in operation and showed the decreasing bug trend
associated with the release. He also described the plans for adding financial functions in
Release 1.5 and CACIS functions in 2.0. Items beyond those are under consideration for
Release 3.0. The cost to date has been $2.137M and the amount requested to complete
Release 2.0 is another $1.368M. Mike Baumstark reminded members that ITAC
approval must be obtained before the project exceeds $1M in state funding. Phil showed
Commission on Technology                                                              Page 5
November 3, 2006, Minutes
the number of people and skills dedicated to the project. He also informed members of
the two risks that concern him the most of all: data conversion and being able to hold the
scope while executing the plan. He suggested milestones for receiving funding as follow:
completion of infrastructure, financials (Release 1.5), CACTIS design, and CACTIS
implementation (Release 2.0).

Discussion focused on the actual versus expected functionality that would be delivered in
Release 2.0 and subsequent releases (like e-filing and juvenile case management). Karl
Heckart described the process used by AOC to compare various case management system
solutions against a matrix created from a set of functional requirements gathered from
several sources. These functions were each labeled by court representatives as “critical,”
“desirable,” or “enhancement.” Karl showed a graph depicting the way AZTEC,
AGAVE 1.0, iCIS, and a specific vendor system stack up against the 258 requirements by
category. Partial functionality of current systems was also considered. No attempt was
made to validate the data provided and each requirement was given equal weight for
speed and simplicity.

Much discussion ensued about the advantages and disadvantages of exercising any of the
possible options for a statewide general jurisdiction case management system.
       AZTEC, though working at the moment, has been deemed end-of-life due to lack
       of supportability, even though it has much of the required functionality. AOC is
       down to a single programmer and having difficulty finding additional support
       resources. AZTEC is not a long-term solution worthy of continued investment.
       AGAVE’s primary mission was to replace failing Wang technology in Pima and
       Release 2.0 appears to do that, regardless of whether it eventually becomes a
       statewide solution. The project manager is confident that the schedule will be met
       with the scope unveiled today, as documented in a 40-page detailed report. In
       general, members are not confident that Release 2.0 will provide the full
       functionality users need in superior courts throughout the state, requiring AOC to
       fill in the gaps before statewide rollout. Clerks feel they may be able to work
       around some of the excluded functionality if it means the new CMS is installed
       sooner. The possibility of adding functionality like probate, juvenile court, and e-
       filing externally, then integrating them into AGAVE later was also raised.
       iCIS appears enticing from the perspective of “like to have” features, but poses
       supportability issues in its present state. Some of those features may even
       introduce difficulties for rural courts. Waiting for it to be converted to .NET
       architecture adds time and cost, possibly beyond those of AGAVE. Maricopa is
       not convinced resources are available to speed the .NET conversion significantly
       and is unable to support a statewide system, leaving that to AOC.
       A vendor system will meet many of the functional requirements but will not be
       tailored to Arizona, will still take time to procure, and comes with a high price tag
       to purchase and install. It is not likely to be in place much earlier than the local
       version of AGAVE would.

The general theme of the members’ questions was, “if AGAVE is determined not to be
the statewide system of the future, then what will be?” Karl summarized that inclusion of
custom options takes the timeline to the end of 2008 before any statewide deployment
while a vendor solution may prove both cost- and flexibility-prohibitive. He
recommended “letting the horses run” by continuing AGAVE development but still
keeping an eye on the iCIS .NET and vendor options. Members felt more comfortable
Commission on Technology                                                             Page 6
November 3, 2006, Minutes
tabling the vote of confidence until a later meeting where input about functionality of all
the options and effect of adding resources to speed their delivery could be discussed, as
long as funding for AGAVE was still considered today.

MOTION:        Table the discussion about members’ confidence in Pima AGAVE as
               the candidate general jurisdiction case management system until
               input from stakeholders regarding the functionality of all options and
               effect of adding resources to speed delivery of options can be
               examined. The motion passed unanimously. [Kent Batty abstaining]
               TECH 06-47

MOTION:        Approve the use of $829,921.00 in local JCEF for continued
               development of the Pima AGAVE case management system. The
               motion passed unanimously. [Kent Batty abstaining] TECH 06-48

MOTION:        Postpone the discussion on approval of the requested $521,000.00 in
               state JCEF for continued development of the Pima AGAVE case
               management system but continue use of previously approved state
               JCEF to pay the independent AGAVE project manager, Phillip Ellis.
               The motion passed unanimously. [Kent Batty abstaining] TECH 06-49

Project representatives confirmed that postponement of the approval of State JCEF would
not be a detriment to the overall progress of the AGAVE project.


Justice Berch made a call to the public. Hearing no items from the public, members took
to opportunity to make a couple of final comments:
       Gray Krcmarik reported on the positive impact of a letter sent by the chair to
       Coconino Superior Court regarding the need for an EDMS in the court.
       Kent Batty explained his apparent restraint in advocating for the AGAVE project
       as a function of his being a Commission member and not as an indication of any
       lack of faith in or commitment to the project.
       John Barrett announced that he will become a contractor working with
       Maricopa’s Integrated Criminal Justice Information System (ICJIS) project.
       Members congratulated John and wished him well on his retirement. John
       introduced David Stevens, the new CIO for the Superior Court in Maricopa

The motion to adjourn was made by John Barrett, proxy for Marcus Reinkensmeyer, as
his final public action prior to retirement.

The next COT meeting is scheduled for January 5, 2007, in Conference Room 119
A/B of the Arizona State Courts Building. This meeting cannot be vacated due to its
impact on AGAVE project funding.

The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Commission on Technology                                                              Page 7
November 3, 2006, Minutes

To top